THE REFORMATION:

[stevehut]

Greetings, all:

I am writing a book about church history, and I'd like to get some feedback here. Here is part of my chapter about the reformation. What do you think? Any comments?

THE LEGACY OF THE REFORMATION

When an evil spirit comes out of a man, it goes through arid places seeking rest and

does not find it. Then it says,

[Guest charlie]

I don't know what to make of that Steve, when all is said and done. You make some good points but in the end it sounds like you are advocating the institution of yet another "church body"........the REAL one this time. Hey, we've already got over 33,000 REAL ones... why not make it 33,001.

Quick question and this one goes to the heart of why I personally have had to re-evaluate my interpretation of "what I've been TOLD the Bible says" .....in the past year. Infant baptism,.......Where in the Bible does it ever say or indicate that one must be of an age of accountability to be baptized? It doesn't.

The anabaptists required an age of 20 yrs.....then it was lowered......neither was in the Bible.....nada....not there. All indications that the Bible gives us is that children were baptized and that this was accepted by ALL Christians in the early "church" (the entire body of believers). This was a horrible revelation for me personally and I won't go into the details of why right now except to say that accountability dunking baptism was the cornerstone of my upbringing and my belief system. I thought it was in the BIBLE and I've read the Bible so yeah you are correct in saying that people are influenced and believe what they're told (despite denials to the contrary).

But, you do make some other good points. The medieval RCC is what the protestant churches were protesting....they are still protesting today... The "selling" of penances.... the clergy at that time resembled the Jim Bakers and Jimmy Swaggerts of our protestant day and age. Yeah, they had good reasons to protest some things. The mistake was breaking away from the mother church instead of staying and fighting to correct some mistakes of fallen clergy. Basically the reformers succumbed to exactly what satan wanted imo. Yet, they turned around and were just as cruel in exacting punishment on disenters as the Catholics did during the spanish inquisition.

I'd be interested in reading your book when you finish it. But, I tell you right up front, I've gotten the impression that you are anti-Catholic to the max, maybe I'm wrong but that is my impression. If you are be very careful when writing this book not to let that bias interfere.

btw - which of the 33,000 protestant churches would you most closely say represents your personal belief system?

[larryt]

Some quick points for now.

1. The whore of Rev. is refered to as the mother of harlots.

Re 17:5  And upon her forehead [was] a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

Notice plural harlots.

2. The true church has never ceased. Having not been converted in a denomination, I find those who advocate their denomination as the "true church" deplorable.

LT

[stevehut]

Where in the Bible does it ever say or indicate that one must be of an age of accountability to be baptized?

Good question.

The Bible tells us in many places that baptism was accompanied by faith and/or belief and/or repentance. This, by necessity, is an adult decision. What age, exactly? I say every person is different, but I figure somewhere in the teen years.

No, I am not anti-Catholic. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em, in terms of sound doctrine. If that happens to be contrary to Catholic doctrine, I won't apologize for that. But if you followed the reasoning in my post, many Protestant churches (based as they are on Catholic doctrine and structure) aren't much better.

I attend a non-denominational church. I know that doesn't tell you much, but I'd rather just call myself a "Christian" than by the name of any mortal man.

[Old Timer]

Some quick points for now.

1. The whore of Rev. is refered to as the mother of harlots.

Re 17:5

[ServingHim]

I don't know what to make of that Steve, when all is said and done.  You make some good points but in the end it sounds like you are advocating the institution of yet another "church body"........the REAL one this time.    Hey, we've already got over 33,000 REAL ones... why not make it 33,001.

last I read, there were over 39,000, so his makes 39,001~

Quick question and this one goes to the heart of why I personally have had to re-evaluate my interpretation of "what I've been TOLD the Bible says" .....in the past year.  Infant baptism,.......Where in the Bible does it ever say or indicate that one must be of an age of accountability to be baptized?  It doesn't. 

yet, it fits into the doctrine that he, a fallible person believes.

I just HAVE to share this with you guys. I'm a poster on a wonderful discussion forum called 'Spero'. Can you believe that there is a 61 page THREAD discussing INFANT BAPTISM ONLY! It's a MUST read ... it's 'Baptists' vs. 'Catholics' ... and yes, I'm in there too! It's located HERE. GOOD READING...be sure to put it on your 'favorites' menu. It could take you a few days to get through it all...

The anabaptists required an age of 20 yrs.....then it was lowered......neither was in the Bible.....nada....not there.

yep, all on that discussion forum thread...

All indications that the Bible gives us is that children were baptized and that this was accepted by ALL Christians in the early "church" (the entire body of believers).  This was a horrible revelation for me personally and I won't go into the details of why right now except to say that accountability dunking baptism was the cornerstone of my upbringing and my belief system.    I thought it was in the BIBLE and I've read the Bible so yeah you are correct in saying that people are influenced and believe what they're told  (despite denials to the contrary).

amazing what happpens when you study the Word for yourself and don't just believe what is taught to you regardless...that's what I did, and it LED ME TO the Catholic Church...but that's another whole story! :il:

But, you do make some other good points.    The medieval RCC is what the protestant churches were protesting.

yes...

...they are still protesting today... 

yep...

The "selling" of penances.... the clergy at that time resembled the Jim Bakers and Jimmy Swaggerts of our protestant day and age. 

Yep, not ALL who come in the name of the Lord are the REAL THING...just look at Judas...he was hand-picked by our Lord.

Yeah, they had good reasons to protest some things. 

yes, things needed to be changed...but don't you think that God knew exactly what was going on INSIDE His Church? THIS IS A MUST READ ... for anyone interested. I'll save the space by not copying and pasting here.

The mistake was breaking away from the mother church instead of staying and fighting to correct some mistakes of fallen clergy. 

AMEN!

Basically the reformers succumbed to exactly what satan wanted imo.

I agree...

Yet, they turned around and were just as cruel in exacting punishment on disenters as the Catholics did during the spanish inquisition. 

oh, how easily these things are forgotten... SEE HERE... Amazing how one can turn a blind eye when the don't want to see truth in what their OWN 'denomination/non-denom' is all about... I LOVE THIS FILE...

ANOTHER MUST READ ... regarding that famous 'Inquisition'...

I'd be interested in reading your book when  you finish it. 

You won't get my money for it...

But, I tell you right up front, I've gotten the impression that you are anti-Catholic to the max,

yes, along with the many who are already out there...

8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and sulphur, which is the second death." Rev 21:7-8 . . . I just pray Steve that IF you claim that your book is TRUTH, then beware of the consequences IF you are WRONG...and if you're willing to MAKE THAT CHANCE, then go for it...for only in the end, YOU will not BRING down the Catholic Church . . . What then shall we say to this? If God is for us, who is against us? Romans 8:31 (RSV). THE CHURCH will STAND FOREVER, as PROMISED BY CHRIST HIMSELF.

maybe I'm wrong but that is my impression.    If you are be very careful when writing this book not to let that bias interfere. 

yes, so true, as noted above!

btw - which of the 33,000 protestant churches would you most closely say represents your personal belief system?

I'm curious as well...?

[ServingHim]

Where in the Bible does it ever say or indicate that one must be of an age of accountability to be baptized?

Good question.

The Bible tells us in many places that baptism was accompanied by faith and/or belief and/or repentance. This, by necessity, is an adult decision. What age, exactly? I say every person is different, but I figure somewhere in the teen years.

Where does it say in Holy Scripture, "Do not Baptize infants"? There is NO Biblical authority that specifically says to NOT Baptize infants?

Jesus Christ said in Matt 28:19, "GO, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..." He did not say adults only did he? Did he ever put an age limit to receive Baptism?

Acts 22:16, "and now WHY DO YOU DELAY? Get up and be Baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name." So why do you delay in Baptizing your children?

Acts 2:38, But Peter said to them, "Repent and be Baptized every one of you..." I would say that verse would include everyone, including infants and children of all ages. Peter did not say to leave your infants at home.

Acts 16:15, "And when she and her household had been Baptized..." Did her household have infants maybe? Did Luke say "everyone in her household except infants or those who aren't intellectually able to understand it"?

Acts 16:33, "And he took them at that very hour of the night and washed their wounds; and he and ALL his family were baptized immediately." Again, were infants excepted here, or young children who weren't of 'reasoning' age???

1Cor 1:16, "I Baptized also the household of Stephanas..." Did Paul say "everyone except infants" or did he clarify that only those who were 'of age' of reason???

Luke 3:21, "Now it came to pass when all the people had been baptized..." Aren't infants part of "ALL the people"?

For those who deny infant baptism, the burden of proof is upon you to show that in all of the verses listed above there were no infants in all of those households and families.

Jesus Christ said in Matt 19:14, "Let the little children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me." :il:

He also said in John 3:5, "...unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD." ... How are they to come to Him unless they are Baptized? Those who say not to Baptize infants clearly have a Biblical conflict here, and they risk the salvation of the souls of their children, disobeying the word of our Lord.

The baptism of the New Testament makes a man a Christian, and baptism saves,

Acts 2:38, Rom 6:4, 1Pet 3:21. Salvation is a process that BEGINS with baptism...The "type" of baptism in the Old Testament was circumcision, which made a man a Jew, Gen 17:10-14. Circumcision had to be done early in life, on the eighth day of birth. "He that is eight days old among you shall be circumcised, every male throughout your generations..." Gen 17:12

Eight days old and every male, certainly does include infants, does it not?

Since circumcision of infants was so important for the GOD of the Old Testament, why then are children excluded from Baptism by some in the New Testament?

"When his son Isaac was eight days old, Abraham circumcised him as GOD had commanded him." Gen 21:4

"And when eight days were fulfilled for his circumcision, his name was called Jesus..." Luke 2:21

Where in the Old Testament does it say not to circumcise infants? Where does it say in the New Testament not to baptize infants? It doesn't...just as it doesn't say to NOT baptize anyone under the 'age of reason', which is ambiguous anyway. What would one do with someone mentally retarded...do they EVER come to an 'age of reason'?

[ServingHim]

No, I am not anti-Catholic. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em, in terms of sound doctrine.

me too, steve! and I'd say you're POV is missing some crucial things that would make it a sound doctrine...

[ServingHim]

I attend a non-denominational church.

does your church in ALL of it's teaching teach SOUND DOCTRINE...do they have a statement of beliefs? I'd like to see them? Do you agree with ALL of them?

[stevehut]

1- GO, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..."

2- Get up and be Baptized and wash away your sins, calling on his name."

3- Repent and be Baptized every one of you

4- "And when she and her household had been Baptized..."

5-"And he took them at that very hour of the night and washed their wounds;

6- "I Baptized also the household of Stephanas

7- Now it came to pass when all the people had been baptized

8- "Let the little children be, and do not hinder them from coming to me."

9- "...unless a man be born again of water and the Spirit HE CANNOT ENTER INTO THE KINGDOM OF GOD."

10- Those who say not to Baptize infants clearly have a Biblical conflict here, and they risk the salvation of the souls of their children,

11- The baptism of the New Testament makes a man a Christian, and baptism saves,

12- Circumcision had to be done early in life, on the eighth day of birth.

13 -Where in the Old Testament does it say not to circumcise

1- You forgot the second half of that verse. It says teach them to obey. Can you teach a newborn to obey??

2- At the age of six months, I was unable to call upon anyone's name. How about you?

3- Can a baby repent?

4- Read the whole story. It says the family listened to the instruction of Paul and Silas, in the middle of the night. You suppose they woke up the babies to listen?

5- Same story as #4, you don't to use it twice.

6- See #1-4

7- That would have been the baptism of John, and not a Christian baptism. In any event, John also required repentance and confession of sins.

8- Yup. Jesus wants children to know him. It says that he touched them and blessed him. I will agree with that all day long.

9- Again, no argument here.

10 - Ah, you speak of Original Sin. That's another sermon for another day.

11- Yup. Agreed. But not in a vacuum of faith and repentance.

12- Yup. But circumcision was a demonstration of the faith of the parents. Christian Baptism is a demonstration of the faith of the individual.

13- Why are we talking about circumcision?